found in the two Ṣaḥīḥs and other canonical collections, he regarded himself as having no need of it (1) for those. Consequently, to rely on his Sunan alone in this area breeds a profound ignorance of the very foundations of Islam. Observe, for example, the work of Abū (2) al-Maʿālī that he considered the distillation of his life’s effort—Nihāyat al-Maṭlab fī Dirāyat al-Madhhab (3). In that entire book there is not a single ḥadīth ascribed to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī except one report concerning the basmala, and even that report is not actually in al-Bukhārī, as he claimed. Because he and those like him possessed only scant knowledge of the fundamentals of Islam, the Shāfiʿī scholars agreed that they do not constitute a recognised wajh (authoritative juristic position) within the madhhab. If his own associates deemed it impermissible to take their contrary opinions into account on even a single ancillary point of fiqh, what standing could they possibly have in anything beyond that? And if those same associates concurred that it is not lawful to adopt him (4) as an imām for a single subsidiary issue, how could he be taken as an imām in the fundamentals of the religion? It is evident that his stature among both elite and common folk rose only (5) because of his profound mastery of the Shāfiʿī madhhab—may Allah be pleased with its founder—for that school is built upon the Book and the Sunnah, and it is through this that he gained esteem among Muslims. At most, what one finds from him therein is a citation he has compiled or an investigation whose subtlety he has detected; this in no way (6) qualifies him to be counted an imām in the discipline, like those scholars whose independent wujūh carry weight. How then with respect to the speculative discourse about which al-Shāfiʿī and the rest of the imams (7) explicitly stated that it is not